US v. David Day
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN DAY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-30064-jct-mfu-1; 7:07-cv-00376-jct-mfu)
January 14, 2010
January 21, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Allen Day, Assistant United Appellee.
Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: David Allen Day seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his of Fed. the R. Civ. P. 60(b) order motion denying for his
previous motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find
that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Day has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?